F 1249 
.ri28 
Copy 1 



TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE 



1822-1829 



BY 



WILLIAM R. MANNING 



(Reprint from The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume XVII, Number 3, January, 1914. 
Published by The Texas State Historical Association.) 



AUSTIN, TEXAS 



vv^. 



TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY ISSUE, 1822-1839 

WILLIAM R. MANNING 

It is the purpose of this article to study the diplomatic relations 
between Mexico and the United States concerning Texas and the 
boundary issue from 1823 to 1829. Internal affairs in Texas will 
be alluded to only when they furnish an occasion for or exercise 
an influence upon diplomatic communications. 

The secret instructions given Octoher 31, 1823, to Zozaya, the 
first Mexican minister to the United States, required him to ask 
the views of that government with reference to the limits of 
Louisiana. He was told that the imperial Mexican government 
considered the treaty of February 23, 1819, between the United 
States and Spain valid, and was disposed to carry out its pro- 
visions for establishing permanent landmarks. He was to learn 
whether any settlements had been effected or were being planned 
which would prejudice the rights of the Empire under that treaty.^ 

Spain's refusal to ratify the treaty for almost two years in the 
vain effort to induce the United States to agree not to recognize 
her rebellious colonies had delayed its execution until Mexico had 
become de facto independent. The recognition of that independ- 
ence by the United States in the early part of 1822 made it neces- 
sary to reckon henceforth with Mexico in anv matter concerning 



^Instrucciones Reservadas para Zozaya, 31 de Octubre . de 1822, La 
Diplomacia Mexicana, I, 85. This treaty later known as the Florida 
Treaty is spoken of in the correspondence of the time as the Treaty of 
VVashinston. 



218 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

the southwestern boundary. In the meantime much had been said 
concerning the treaty and the claim to Texas which many asserted 
the United States liad acquired in purchasing Louisiana from 
France. There was a strong disposition on the part of many 
people, some having considerable influence with the government; 
to take advantage of the change of sovereignty to regain the terri- 
tory which they insisted had thus been bartered away.- This, sen- 
timent in the United States was strengthened by a statement of 
Onis, the Spanish negotiator of the treaty, to the effect that "it is 
improperly called a tn.-aty of cession, as it is in reality one of 
exchange or permutation of one small province for another of 
double the extent, richer and more fertile."^ 

The language of Onis also strengthened the suspicious fears of 
the Mexican government concerning the intentions of the United 
States. Elsewhere he says, "The Americans at present think 
themselves superior to all the nations of Europe; and believe that 
their dominion is destined to extend now to the Isthmus of Panama 
and hereafter over all the regions of the new world. Their govern- 
ment entertains the same ideas, and the whole course of its policy 
calculates upon the illusions of these flattering expectations."* 
The ephemeral republic proclaimed by Long in 1819 and the col- 
onization enterprises of the Austins and others in the following 
years confirmed the suspicions of the Mexicans. Less than a 
month after Minister Zozaya had landed at Baltimore, less than 
two weeks after his formal reception at Washington, and only two 
days after the banquet which President Monroe gave in his honor, 
he wrote his government on December 26, 1822, that he had dis- 
covered ambitious views with reference to the province of Texas. 
In the national Congress and in the state legislatures, he said, 
there was talk of enlarging the army and militia, which movement 
he believed had no other object than that arising out of their am- 

'The discussion of the basis for. the character of, and the justice of 
this claim is not in place here. See Rives, United States and Mexico, 
I, 1-26; Smith, Annexation of Texas, 5-8; Babcock, Rise of American 
Nationality, 285-289; Cox, "Louisiana- Texas Frontier," The Quarterly, 
X, 1-75; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, II, 46-53; and 
footnotes in each. 

'Onis, Memoir, 146. Onis's Memoria was printed in Madrid in 1820; 
and this translation was printed in Baltimore the following year. 

*Ibid., 23. 

cm 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 219 

bition for Texas. He declared : "In time they will be our sworn 
enemies, and foreseeing this we ought to treat them as such from 
the present day."^ In August of 1833 Torrens, the Mexican 
Charge, wrote his government that he frequently noticed the public 
papers enlarging on the fine location and fertility of the territory 
of Texas and reminding the government that it ought not to have 
lost the opportunity to obtain this rich province from Spain; and 
one of the objections M'hich the enemies of the secretary of state 
were urging against his candidacy for the presidency was that he 
had ceded the province to the Spaniards. In the same letter 
Torrens advised his government not to permit the American popu- 
lation to become preponderant in Texas.'' Mexican authorities in 
Texas were at the same time sending alarming reports of the activ- 
ities of United States military establishments near the border. As 
a result of these the imperial government had sent a secret emis- 
sary into Texas in the latter part of 1822 to ascertain the true 
intentions of the United States.'^ 

On October 1, 1823, Alaman, who was secretary for foreign 
affairs of the provisional government which had taken control after 
the fall of Iturbide in the spring, instructed Torrens to use all 
his skill and energy to have the boundary which had been estab- 
lished between the United States and Spain confirmed and marked 
out.*^ AYhen Torrens received this instruction he asked an inter- 

=Nota del CMinistro Zozaya, 26 de Diciembre de 1822, La Dipt. Mex., 
I, 103. He virtually repeats the language of Onis when he says: "La 
soberbia de estos republicanos no les permite vernos como iguales, sino 
como inferiores; su evanecimiento se extiende en mi juicio a creer que 
su capital lo sera de todos las Americas." 

«Nota del . . . Torrens, 21 de Agosto de 1823, La Dipl. Mex., II, _22. 
nid., 50-53, Torrens writes at length on proposed Anglo-American colonies 
in Texas, saying among other things, "mi opinion es, que intentando 
algunos agentes de Nuevo Orleans hacer estableeimientos de anglo-ameri- 
canos en Texas, con el mismo objeto que lo habian hecho en Baton Rouge, 
de adquirir una influencia y maioria en la poblacion y hacerlos deelarar 
que querian unirse a los Estados Unidos, etc. . . . For tanto, me 
parece peligroso permitirles establecerse en gran numero y formando 
pueblos separados, porque esto vendria a ser el origen de disensiones con 
los Estados Unidos." He asks for instructions concerning the course 
he should pursue regarding limits. He had not received any on that sub- 
ject since the change in government following Iturbide's deposition. 

'Bugbee, "Texas Frontier, 1820-1825," 114 (Reprint from Puhlications 
Southern Historical Association, March, 1900). As evidence he cites let- 
ters in the Bexar Archives. 

^Alaman to Torrens, 1 de Octubre de 1823, La Dipl. Mex., II, 33. Ala- 
man's Memorial to Congress, Nov. 1, 1823, in British and Foreign State 



320 The /Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

view with Adams before delivering any note on the subject to 
learn in advajice whether there would be any difficulty in carry- 
ing it out. On January 2(r), 1824, he wrote that he had discovered 
some difficulties. The time provided in the treaty for the appoint- 
ment of commissioners by both governments to mark the boundary 
had expired. Then a proclamation of the king of Spain had 
declared null and void everything that had been enacted by the 
constitutional government which had ratified the treaty. He pro- 
posed to wait fifteen or twenty days before he handed the govern- 
ment a note asking its intentions. According to that explanation 
he would word his reply ; but he would insist that the attitude of 
Spain iiad nothing now to do with the matter, and that Mexico 
and the United States should proceed to carry out the treaty, 
naming tlicir commissioners to mark the boundary, if not by virtue 
of the fourth article of the Spanish treaty, then by a new conven- 
tion. Pie was sure the government would attempt to gain some 
advantage by this Jiew pretext, and would not be surprised if the 
troops on the frontier should be ordered to advance into Mexican 
territorv, so unlimited was their ambition for Texas. General 
Jackson, to M-liom he had been introduced, had declared in his 
presence that the government ought never to have lost the oppor- 
tunity to obtain it. In the same conversation Jackson liad said 
the way to obtain a territory was to occupy it, and after having 
possession treat for it, as had been done in Florida. It would not 
be strange, Torrens said, if the coming election should result in 
his elevation to the presidency, in which case he would be sure to 
employ this method.** 

The note which Torrens presented Febi'uary 15, 1824, declared 
that the Supreme Executive Power of Mexico wishing to remove 
all matters that might affect the good understanding which it 
desired to maintain with the United States had instructed him to 
ask, "that the limits between the two countries be fixed according 
to the third article of the treaty of Washington of the 22d of 
February, 1819, ... I have therefore the honor to transmit 
the pre?ent communication to your Excellency in order to ascer- 

Papers, X, 1072; and Poinsett, Notes, 311. He says tlie charge has been 
instructed to secure the confirmation of this line. 

'Nota del . . . Torrens, 26 de Enero de 1824, La Dipl. Mex., II, 73. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1S22-1S29 231 

tain whether the Executive of the United States is disposed to 
acknowledge the said article, and will accordingly appoint the com- 
missioners aforesaid; requesting at the same time that your Excel- 
lenc}^ may be pleased to inform me as early as convenient, of the 
intention of the President of the United States on the subject."^" 
A little more than a month after presenting this note Torrens 
wrote his government that he had received no reply." Five months 
after its presentation he wrote that he had asked an interview with 
the secretary of state to learn why no reply had been sent.^- But 
still no reply came. On April 15, 1824, the political chief of 
the Departlnent of Texas had written the government at Mexico 
that he was certain "the United States was 'trying to annul or 
at least has the idea of annulling' the treaty of 1819, and he be- 
lieved the American government would then assert its claim to 
the banks of the Eio Grande." Similar alarming reports from 
the same source followed. From various officials in Texas many 
letters were sent warning the government against the danger of 
permitting Anglo-American colonists to come in such large num- 
bers into that territory. ^^ 

When in the middle of 1824 Obregon was appointed minister 
to Washington his secret instructions, dated August 30, told him 
the reports of Torrens indicated that the United States had inten- 
tions on Mexican territories in the Calif ornias, New Mexico, and 
Texas; and with reference to the last those intentions were gen- 
eral and public. Obregon was told to pay particular attention to 
this matter. At this time the Mexican government seems to have 
been uncertain whether this was or was not an opportune time to 
press the negotiation for a treaty of limits. In the original draft 
of these secret instructions in the archives of the foreign office in 
Mexico, there was inserted and and then erased a paragraph say- 
ing he was not to begin the negotiation for the treaty of limits 

"Torrens to Adams, Feb. 15, 1824, House Executive Documents, 25th 
congress, 1st session, No. 42, p. 6; British and Foreign State Papers, 
XXVI, 828. 

"Torrens to Secretario, 23 de Marzo de 1824, MS. Relaciones Exteriores. 

^^Same to same, 14 de Julio de 1824, MS. Relaciones Exteriores. 

"Bugbee, "Texas Frontier. 1820-1825," 115, citing Bexar Archives. A 
letter of Sept. 19, 1824, from the political chief said, "The Anglo-Ameri- 
can government counts this province as its own and includes it on its 
maps, tracing its boundaries from the soiirces of the Rio Grande to its 
mouth on the coast of Tamaulipas." 



222 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

till circumstances were more favorable; but if necessity should 
arise to say anything about the matter he was to claim the limits 
of the treaty of 1S19. Immediately following this erased para- 
graph is one which completely reversed it. In that he is told 
that the principal object of his mission is the negotiation of a 
treaty of limits as early as possible and in the most advantageous 
terms. He was to use his best efforts to secure the acknowledg- 
ment and ratification of the pending treaty between the United 
States and Spain. If before such negotiation should be completed 
the United States or its citizens should attempt the occupation of 
any territory belonging to Mexico under that treaty he should 
formulate claims on it as a basis. He was told that great circum- 
spection was necessary in reference to all who came from the 
United States since there was danger of the introduction of spies 
or of invaders in disguise. In carrying out his general instruc- 
tions regarding the admission of colonists he was to bear in mind 
these secret instructions. All reports on these matters were to be 
in cipher.^* 

Obregon's general instructions bearing the same date as his 
secret instructions told him that colonization was one of the most 
important matters then occupying the attention of the govern- 
ment. He was asked to call attention to the general law 
of August 18, 1824, on the subject, and to publish its regulations 
in the newspapers of the United States. All colonists from the 
United States, he was reminded, must bear passports and recom- 
mendations from Mexican diplomatic or consular agents in the 
ITnited States. It was necessary to know the place of origin, the 
means. of support, and the character of all colonists or empresarios. 
Those under suspicion, A'icious adventurers, or vagabonds were to 
be excluded. But industrious persons, especially artisans, ship- 

"Instrucciones miii Reservadas, 30 de Agosto de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext. 
It is interesting to note here that Mexicans thought of asserting claim 
to the Oregon country. Torrens wrote that the settlement of that country 
was being considered in the United States Congress, where it was being 
urged that to leave this territory occupied by Indians, with England on 
one side and Mexico on the other to intrigue with the Indians, was dan- 
gerous to the United States and could do more harm than all Europe. 
Torrens added that he thought it would be dangerous to Mexico to per- 
mit the United States to occupy it. Torrens to Secretario, 5 de Mayo de 
1824, MS. Rel. Ext. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 223 

builders, and fishermen were to be encom-aged and given 
lands.^^ 

Before the time of Poinsett's appointment as minister from the 
United States to Mexico in March of 1S25 no reply had been made 
to Torrens's note of more than a year earlier and no negotiation 
had been undertaken for the settlement of the boundary. With the 
new minister, Obregon, no communication had passed on the sub- 
iect. In the instructions which were given to Poinsett on March 
26, 1825, by Henry Clay, secretary of state under iha new Adams 
administration, the third article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain 
was quoted describing the boundary line, and the fourth article 
providing for its demarcation was mentioned. He was told that 
the treaty had not yet been carried into execution, but that "hav- 
ing been concluded when Mexico composed a part of the dominions 
of Spain, it is obligatory upon both the United States and Mexico." 
Torrens's note of February 15 of the preceding year is cited as 
indicating the willingness of Mexico to accede to that treaty. But 
Clay continued; 

Some difEculties may possibly hereafter arise between the two 
countries from the line thus agreed upon, against which it would 
be desirable now to guard, if practicable; and as the government 
of Mexico may be supposed not to have any disinclination to the 
fixation of a nW line which would prevent those difficulties, the 
President wishes you to sound it on that subject; and to avail 
yourself of a favorable disposition, if you should find it, to effect 
that object. The line of the Sabine approaches our great western 
mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexican govern- 
ment may not be unwilling to establish that of the Eio Brassos 
de Dios, or the Eio Colorado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Eio 
del Norte in lieu of it. By the agreed line, portions of both the 

"Instrucciones, 30 de Agosto de 1824, MS. Rel. Ext. For text of the 
■colonization law see Mexico, Leyes, Decrctos, y Ordenes que forman el 
Derecho Internacional, 125. This is a government publication in three 
parts, of which this is part three. Parts one and two are Tratculos y 
Coivvenciones. See note 32. For a discussion of the law, see any Texas 
history. 

On March 23, 1824. Torrens had reported to his government that 
the Swiss consul at Washington had asked him if there would be any 
objection to receiving colonists from Switzerland; and he had replied 
that he thought they would be received since they were an industrious 
people and could not be enemies to liberal institutions. Torrens to Sec- 
retario, 23 de Marzo de 1824, ISIS. Rel. Ext. On July 10 the government 
at Mexico approved this act of Torrens and authorized him to assure the 
Swiss consul that Catholics from his country would find a favorable 
reception. Secretario to Torrens, 10 de Julio de 1824, MS. Rel. Exi;. 



224 The Southivestern Histdrical Quarterly 

Red River and branches of the Arkansas are thrown on the Mexi- 
can side, and the navigation of both of these rivers, as well as 
that of the Sabine, is made common to the respective inhabitants 
of the two countries. When the countries adjacent to those waters 
shall become thickly inhabited, collisions and misunderstandings 
may arise from the community thus established, in the use of their 
navigation, which it would be well now to prevent. 

As an additional motive to induce Mexico to consent to such an 
alteration Clay suggested that it would place the capital of Mexico 
nearer the center of the Mexican territories, and, further, that the 
troublesome Comanche Indians would be left to the United States. 
These arguments, if ever presented, were probably about as con- 
vincing as it would be for a large land owner to say to a neighbor- 
ing small farmer, ^'Your house is not in the middle of your fields. 
Give me forty acres next to my line and you will not have to go 
so far to work. Besides, this field contains an ugly patch of 
thistles which my superior industry and intelligence will enable 
me to cope with more successfully than you can." Clay showed 
that he was not prepared to insist on a change of the line nor to 
urge the matter unduly by saying, in concluding his instructions 
with reference to the boundary : "But if you should find that the 
Mexican government is unwilling to alter the agreed line in the 
manner proposed and that it insists upon the execution of the 
third and fourth ai'ticles of the treaty before mentioned, you are 
authorized to agree to the recognition and establishment of the 
line as described in the third article, and to the demarcation of it 
forthwith, as is stipulated in the fourth."^*^ 

Before Poinsett had opportunity to open negotiations respecting 
the boundary, in fact only two days after his fonnal reception by 
the president of Mexico, that official received an interesting side- 
light on Poinsett's personal views with reference to the most 
desirable location of the boundary line. On June 3, 1825, a man 
named Azearato who had been an official close to Iturbide wrote a 

"Clay to Poinsett, March 26, 1825, MS. Department of State, Instruc- 
tions, X, 225; extracts are printed in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 5; 
and B. and F. 8t. P., XXVI, 829. For brief discussions of Poinsett's 
instructions concerning Texas, see Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and 
Polk, 61; Garrison, Texas, 170; Bancroft, N. Mex. Sis. and Tex., II, 88; 
McMaster, U. S., V, 460; Von Hoist, United States (lS2S-lSJt6), 553; 
Falconer, Discovery of the Mississippi, 48: Kennedy, Texas, I, 370; Adams, 
"Texas Speech" in H. of R., 1838, p. 106. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1S29 235 

letter to President A'ictoria saying that when Poinsett arrived at 
the coast of Mexico in 1822 he was received by General Santa 
Anna as an official envoy, and when he reached the capital he was 
supposed by all to have this character and was so presented to the 
Emperor. After the presentation Poinsett had told the writer 
that he desired an interview to speak of an interesting matter. At 
the time appointed the writer met him expecting the communica- 
tion to be official. With a map before him Poinsett pointed out 
the line of 1819 but said he thought it was not a desirable one, 
and then traced a line which showed that he desired to absorb all 
Texas, New Mexico, and Upper California, and parts of Lower 
California, Sonora, Coahuila, and Nuevo Leon. Eepressing his 
anger Azcarate replied that by virtue of the treaty of Iguala 
[Cordoba?] the Mexican government would ahvays respect the 
Onis treaty and would never cede a handbreadth of territory. An 
appointment was marie to continue the interview the next day. 
In the meantime Azcarate saw Iturbide, explained the matter, 
and received authority to use his Judgment in finding definitely the 
character of the proposals Poinsett had to make. Before entering 
on the discussion at the second meeting Azcarate presented his 
credentials and asked for Poinsett's. The latter thereupon de- 
clared that he came in nc public character but merely as a traveler, 
and was only expressing his own personal opinion. Although it 
was evident that the discussion could be only an academic one, 
nevertheless the interview was continued and Azcarate was able, 
he said, to perceive five purposes which Poinsett had in mind: 
namely, to get possession of rich mineral lands; to gain ports on 
both seas for controlling the commerce between them; to get con- 
trol of the fur trade with the Indians ; to get control of the fisheries 
in the Californias; and to monopolize the coasting trade on both 
seas. Azcarate concluded his observations by saying that in his 
conception the establishment of limits was to be the apple of dis- 
cord between the United States and Mexico. His desire for the 
happiness of the fatherland was his motive, ho told Victoria, for 
making this communication. He said it was possible that slight 
errors might have crept into this account of the interview, but it 
was substantial]y true and could be verified from a report in the 



226 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

office of foreign relations which he delivered to Itiirbide at . the 
time without preserving a cop5^^^ 

On July 12. 1825, about six weeks after Poinsett's reception, 
occurred his first conference with Alaman, the Mexican minister 
of foreign relations, concerning the boundary. In it he had "sug- 
gested that, although the government of the United States held 
itself bound to carry into effect the treaty of limits concluded with 
the king of Spain the 22d of February, 1(S19, still it would appear 
more becoming the independent character of this government to 
lay aside that treaty altogether, and to endeavor to establish a 
boundary which would be more easily defined, and which might 
be mutually more advantageous.'' The secretary expressed him- 
self much gratiiied by such a suggestion, and proposed that the 
two governments should foithwith appoint commissioners to make 
a reconnoissance of the country bordering on the line formerly 
settled with Spain, so as to obtain such information in regard to 
"that portion of our respective territories as would enable us to act 
understandingly on the subject." Poinsett objected that such a 
commission would delay the negotiation at least two years since it 
would take nearly a year to arrange for tlie commission and 
another year to do its work and make a report. Alaman replied 
that his government would be very unwilling to fix the limits on 
the very slender information which it then possessed.^** 

On the matter of the difference of opinion as to the proposed 
commission to examine the country near the border an exchange 
of formal notes occurred a few days later in wliich each gave at 
length his reasons for the position he had taken. ^^ As Poin- 
sett anticipated, the government at Washington refused to 
accede to the proposal for a joint commission since such was 

"Azcarate to Victoria, 3 de Junio de 1825, MS. Rel. Ext. Azcai-ate 
was appointed as minister to England in 1822 by the imperial govern- 
ment, but did not go. See Bocanegra, Memorias, I, 76. Poinsett tells of 
his presentation to Iturbide on Nov. 3. 1822, Init of course says nothing 
of this conversation with Azcarate. In his description of the emperor 
Poinsett shows his antipathy to monarchy in general and to the imperial 
system of Iturbide in particular. Poinsett, ISloies on Mexico, 07, 69. 

"Poinsett to Clay, July 18, 182.5, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Despatches, I; 
extracts in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 19; and B. and F. St. P., 
XXVI, 831. 

"Alaman to Poinsett, Julv 20, 1825, and Poinsett to Alaman. July 27, 
1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex.'Desp., I; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is.. No. 42, p. 20; 
Ji. and F. St. P., XXVI, 831, 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 227 

considered unnecessary and would be reversing the usual pro- 
cedure, which was to decide on the principle and then send the 
joint commissioDi to mark the line in accordance with the agree- 
ment. If examination were needful ])efore deciding on the line 
it wauld be better for each government to send a separate com- 
mission. The United States had no objection to Mexico's doing 
so if desired; but hoped no unnecessary time would be lost in 
resuming the negotiation.^" 

In reporting to Clay on July 37, what had passed between him- 
self and Alaman on the subject, Poinsett said : "I find that there 
exists gi'cat apprehension in the minds of the people of this coun- 
try that the government of the United States contemplate renew- 
ing their claim to the territory north of the Eio Bravo del Norte; 
and it mav be of some importance to consider their great sensi- 
bility on this subject." He added in cipher: "It appears to me 
that it will be important to gain time if we wish to extend our 
territory beyond the boundary agreed upon by the treaty of 1819. 
Most of the good land from the Colorado to the Sabine has been 
granted by the State of Texas and is rapidly peopling with either 
grantees or squatters from the United States, a population they 
will find difficult to govern, and perhaps after a short period they 
may not be so averse to part with that portion of their territory 
as they are at present."^^ A little more than a week after sending 
this first report on limits Poinsett again wrote in cipher: "I feel 
very anxious about the boundary line between the two nations. 
While it will be politic not to justify their jealous fears on that 
subject by extravagant pretensions, I think it of the greatest im- 
portance that we should extend our territory toward the Eio del 
Norte either to the Colorado or at least to the Brazos. We ought 
to have on the frontier a hardy race of white settlers, which the 
climate of that region of countr}- situated between the Mississippi 
and the Sabine will not admit of."-- Five days later another 

'"Clay to Poinsett, Sept. 24, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Instr.. X. 835; 
extracts in American State Papers, Foreign, VI, 581; R. Ex. Docs. 25c., 
Is., No. 42, p. 7; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 836. 

^Poinsett to Clay, July 27, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., T; 
extract not including the cipher poition is in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 
42, p. 20; and B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 833. Reeves, Diplomacy under 
Tyler and Polk, 62. 

^Poinsett to Clay, Aug. 5, 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I. 
Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63. 



228" The Southwesiern Historical Quarterly 

despatch to Clay, mostly in cipher, told of Alaman's declaring, in 
what was supposed to be a secret session of congress, that the 
United States ouglit to be regarded as enemies rather than as 
friends, because: 

Mexico had everything to fear from our ambitions and nothing 
to hope from our friendship. He cited the treaty of limits with 
Spain as an instance of our disposition to encroach upon her ter- 
ritory. There are a few members of both liouses disposed to view 
the treaty of 1819 in the same light, and it is possible if the ques- 
tion be left open and the discussion renewed this government may 
revive the absurd pretensions of Cevallos with regard to the west- 
ern boundary of Louisiana. I am tlius particular because I think 
it advisable that the President should be possessed of every circum- 
stance that can aid liim to come to a correct decision upon this 
subject.-'' 

Poinsett's suspicions that the Mexican officials v.ere going to 
try to push the line further east instead of permitting the United 
States to push it west proved to be well founded. In an inter- 
view respecting the boundary on September 80, 1825, Alaman 
aslved Poinsett to trace on a map the boundary between the United 
States and Spain as defined by the treaty of 1795. Poinsett did 
so and then asked why the Mexican negotiator had wislied it done. 
The latter replied that he thought it advisable to specify the 
ancient boundary in the commercial treaty they were about con- 
cluding and leave it so until the new line should be agreed on 
in the new treaty of limits to be concluded. Poinsett then de- 
clared to Alaman that before 1819 the United States had claimed 
to the Eio Bravo del JSTorte and Spain had claimed to the Mis- 
sissippi. He also asserted that the treaty of that year with Spain 
was binding on the Mexican States, having been concluded before 
their emancipation from Spain and since acknowledged by their 
accredited agent in the United States. It was only motives of 
delicacy toward Mexico that had prevented the United States from 
carrying that treaty into full effect. It was the same motive that 
had caused him to propose tlie conclusion of an entirely new treaty. 
But he would not yield one square inch of land which had been 
included within the limits of the United States according to that 

"Poinsett to Clay, Aug. 10, 1825. MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1S22-1S29 229 

treaty. In his opinion a more advantageous line might be drawn ; 
but such was not to be sought for east of the Sabine nor north of 
the Red Eiver or the Arkansas. Finally, Poinsett asserted that 
he would not consent to the insertion of any such article in the 
commercial treaty without at the same time renewing in it the 
claim of the "United States to all of the country north and east 
of the Rio Bravo del Korte."* 

In October, 1825, a radical change occurred in the Mexican 
ministry which displaced partisans of the centralist faction and 
replaced them with federalists favorable to the interests of the 
United States. It was thought that Poinsett had been largely in- 
strumental in bringing about the change and it was suspected that 
he was using his influence to secure a treaty of limits through his 
friends which would extend the borders of his country at the 
expense of Mexico. But if he was trying to do so, as he probably 
was not, he was unsuccessful. One of the new ministers, writing 
to another on November 7, 1825, reminded him of the "memorable 
words of the laws of the Indies, which say, 'We promise and give 
our honor and royal word for us and our successors, that never 
shall be alienated or separated in whole or in part, either its cities 
(of America) or inhabitants, for any cause or reason, or in favor 
of any person whatever. And if we or our successors should 
make any donation or alienation contrary to the aforesaid, it is null 
and such we declare it.'" According to this the whole Florida 
treaty was null. But in this minister's conception there was 
another reason why Mexico was af liberty to ignore the Florida 
treaty if desirous of doing so. He declared that the treaty, though 
approved by the Spanish cortes, did not have the "consent of the 
Mexican delegation, which refused to sign it."^" 

Thus within a few months after the negotiations had begun each 
governmicnt discovered that the other, while claiming to be will- 
ing to ratify and abide by the treaty of 1819, was really wishing 
to secure the extreme limits claimed by the United States on the 
one side and by Spain on the other before that treaty was con- 
cluded. Each had also discovered that the other was determined 

=*Poinsett to Clay, Sept. 20. 1825, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I; 
E. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 23: B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 835. 

-^Esteva to Llave, Nov. 7, 1825, enclosure with Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 4, 
1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I. 



230 The Southivesiern Historical Quarterly 

not to give up anything which that treaty secured to it. But each 
hoped something would happen to break down the determination 
of the other. Having thus found it impossible to come to any 
understanding for the time regarding the matter of limits, little 
of importance passed between tlie negotiators on the subject for 
more than a year. 

In the meantime the influence was working which Poinsett had 
said would probably in time make Mexico less unwilling to part 
with Texas. The settlement of the territory was progressing 
rapidly. Obregon in Washington reported to his government that 
these settlements were Mexican only in name, belonging in customs 
and inclinations almost wholly to the United States.-" Indians in 
Texas were becoming more and more troublesome as they saw 
their lands being so rapidly taken away from them. The minister 
of war notified the minister of foreign relations that officials near 
the border complained of the sale of arms and ammunition to the 
Indians by citizens of the United States.^' On June 16, 1826, 
Camacho, the secretaiy of foreign relations, called the matter to 
Poinsett's attention,^^ and on June 20, Poinsett reported the com- 
plaint to Clay. 29 Steps were taken to locate a Mexican consul at 
Natchitoches in Louisiana to prevent the importation of arms by 
that route and to enforce the regulations restricting the admission 
of colonists.'*' In March Poinsett protested against certain grants 

-''Obregon to Secreta^io, 12 de Noviembre de 1825, MS. Eel. Ext. 

"Pedraza to Seeretario, 10 de Febrero, 24 de Febrero, and 9 de Junio de 
1826; and Blanco to Seeretario, 7 de Agosto de 1826; all in MS. Rel. Ext. 

^''Camacho to Poinsett, 20 de Junio de 1826, MS. Rel. Ext.; and MS. 
Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II. 

'"Poinsett to Camacho, June 20, 1826, MS. Pel. Ext.; Poinsett to Clay, 
June 20, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., II. The last declares that 
hostile tribes in Mexico were in the habit of capturing defenceless Mexi- 
cans and carrying them across the border where United States citizens 
ransomed them and held them till their friends in Mexico redeemed them. 
This encouraged Indian warfare. 

'"Erasnio Seguin of Bexar was appointed to the post in January, 1826; 
but in May asked to be relieved from serving because of his ill-health, 
because of the unhealthfulness of the climate of Natchitoches, and 
because he could not take his numerous family with him. His credentials 
and detailed instructions accompany his letter of appointment. Seere- 
tario to Seguin, 21 de Enero de 1826; Seguiji to Seeretario, 28 de Marzo 
de 1826; MS. Rel. Ext. 

Bernardo Gutierrez, commandant of Tamaulipas, wrote in March urging 
the appointment of a consul at Natchitoches and recommending a resident 
of the place named Juan Cortes whom he had met there in 1812. Pedraza 
to Seeretario, 7 de Marzo de 1826, MS. Rel. Ext. 



Texas and the Boundanj Issue, 1822-1829 231 

of land which he heard had been made near the border in Texas, 
saying he would not consider any grant as valid which was made 
while negotiations were pending in case such grants should lie in 
territory ultimately included in the United States.^^ When in 
June, 1826, the negotiations for the commercial treaty were near- 
ing conclusion the Mexican plenipotentiaries proposed an addi- 
tional article declaring that the contracting parties would take into 
consideration as soon as possible the negotiation of a treaty of 
limits, and in the meantime woidd facilitate in any way needed 
the work of the commissions sent by either power to examine the 
country near the proposed boundary; and declaring also that un- 
authorized acts or settlements by the citizens of one country in 
territory that should fall to the other should not constitute valid 
claims.^^ In accepting the article Poinsett declared it was totally 
unnecessary because the I'Tnited States considered the treaty of 
1819 with Spain binding and was ready to execute it. 

The undersigTied was instructed, however, by his government to 
accede to the wishes of Mexico, if it desired to fix a new line, 
which might obviate some difficulties which are supposed to attend 
the existence of the present limits as agreed upon by the treaty 
aforesaid. But he was especially instructed not to insist upon 
changing this line contrary to the wishes of the Mexican govern- 
ment, but to agree to carry all the provisions of the treaty of 
Washington concluded between the United States of America and 
Spain into full effect, so far forth as relates to tlie boundaries of 
the two countries, if required to do so by the Mexican govern- 
ment.^' 

At the end of the year 1826 an event occurred in Texas which 
partially fulfilled Poinsett's prophecy made a year and a half 

='Poiiisett to Clay, March 18, 1826. MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I; 
E. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 24 ; Poinsett told of the effort of John D. 
Hunter to obtain a grant of land for Indians who were anxious to move 
over the frontier from the United States into Texas. The "government 
refused to give them a large tract of land where they might remain in 
a body; but offered to settle them in different parts of the country." 
Poinsett thought it would not be politic for the United States to permit 
Indians thus to move in bodies across the border. Poinsett to Clay, April 
30, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., I. 

==-Camacho and Esteva to Poinsett, June 19, 1826, Am. St. P., For., VI, 
599 ; Mexico, Tratados y Convenciones, II, 125. 

^''Poinsett to Plenipotentiaries, June 26, 1826, Am.. St. P., For., VI, 599; 
Mexico Trat: y Conv., II, 126. For the additional articles see Ibid., 144. 



232 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

earlier. This was the well known Fredonian Eevolt. It was led 
by Hayden Edwards, who had received from the Mexican authori- 
ties a large empresario grant in the neighborhood of Nacogdoches, 
which grant had subsequently been revoked because he had been 
unsuccessful in his indiscreet though well meant efforts to over- 
come difficulties that were all but insuperable. Blinded with 
anger and a desire for revenge and fatuously hoping the people of 
the other Anglo-American colonies would come to his assistance, 
he and a few associates formed a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, 
issued a declaration of independence, raised a red-and-white flag 
symbolizing a union between the red and white men, and drew a 
line dividing Texas between the two races. Austin issued a vio- 
lent denunciation of the revolt; and members of his and other 
colonies joined the Mexican authorities to put it down. The Fre- 
donians, unsupported and discouraged, disbanded with scarcely an 
attempt at resistance.^* 

This independence movement, although in itself the merest 
fiasco, is of very great importance as marking a turning point in 
the relations between the two countries. It created a great sen- 
sation in both and furnished the occasion for numerous diplomatic 

^*Most writers on Texas history have discussed the questions whether 
Edwards was justified in starting the revolt and whetlier Austin was 
justified in opposing it. G. M. Bryan in Comprehensive History of Texas, 
I, 506-534, gives a full and careful account quoting a large number of 
documents from the Austin papers. He explains without unduly con- 
demning Edwards's actions, and fully justifies Austin's. Yoakum, in the 
same volume. 114-121, justifies Edwards and mildly excuses Austin. 
Brown, Texas, I, 131-140, is more sympathetic with the Fredonians than 
Bryan but not so enthusiastic as Yoakum. He says "Austin was justified 
in his course but not in his denunciations." Foote, Texas and the Texans. 
1, 218-292, gives a long sympathetic account of the revolt, quoting many 
letters and enthusiastically praising B. W. Edwards, who was his per- 
sonal friend. He explains without condemning Austin's attitude. Ban- 
croft, N. Mex. ^ts. and Tex., II, 98-110, gives an impartial account, 
explaining without severely condemning either. Garrison, Texas, 165, 
says Edwards would have found it difficult to avoid trouble "even if he 
had shown the utmost prudence; but his want of caution, not to say 
his improprieties, lay on him heavy responsibility for the result. . . . 
The whole affair was so confused that one grows weary of seeking to 
locate the blame." Barker in The Quarterly, XIII, 259, says, "Austin's 
part was an important one. He gave Edwards sage advice which, if he 
had followed it, would have enabled him to avoid most of his trouble; 
and in the end took the only possible course to preserve the confidence 
of the government and the interests of the colonists." Miss Rather in 
The Quarterly, VIII, 112, explains the DeWitt colony's opposition to the 
Fredonians. For a brief account of the Fredonian Rebellion, see Howren, 
The Quarterly, XVI, 382. 



Texas and the Botindarij Issue, 1822-1S29 233 

communications. Obregon in reporting the revolt to his govern- 
ment said that the Americans established in Texas never ceased 
disturbing the tranquility of Mexico. They considered themselves 
a colony of their fatherland, and expected to reunite themselves to 
it as soon as they could. They took their slaves where the laws 
did not permit slavery, and in order to save their property they 
broke away from Mexico. In view of the character of the people 
on the frontier he believed that the only way to maintain peace 
there was to allow no more American colonizers within the limits of 
Mexico, to fill the territory with vigorous and respectable Mexican 
people, and to establish a sufficient military force there to protect 
them. He was satified that the United States government had 
nothing to do with the affair; but compared this with similar re- 
volts that had occurred earlier at Baton Eouge and in West 
Florida and had been preludes to the seizure of territories there.^'^ 
On February 16, 1827, Obregon had an interview with the secre- 
tary of state on the matter. Clay had said that the president was 
infinitely sorry and wished him to convey to the Mexican govern- 
ment the friendly sentiments of the United States. Three days 
later Clay addressed to Obregon a formal note declaring : 

Information having reached this city of disturbances in the prov- 
ince of Texas, adjoining the territory of the United States, which 
appear to threaten the peace of the United Mexican States, I hasten 
by the direction of the President to express to you the very great 
regret which he feels on account of the existence of those disturb- 
ances. The frankness Avhich has ever characterized the govern- 
ment of the United States in all its intercourse with foreign powers 
and the friendly feelings which it cherishes for the welfare of the 
Eepublic of the United Mexican States supersede altogether any 
necessity for the assurance which, nevertheless, I take pleasure in 
giving that the government of the United States lias not given the 
smallest countenance or encouragement to those disturbances. The 
President has directed orders to be conveyed to that portion of the 
military force of the United States which is stationed on the Mexi- 
can frontier to give no aid or succor of any kind to those who have 
taken arms against or may oppose the authority of the government 

'''"Obregon to Secretario, 8 de Febrero and 10 de Febrero de 1827. MS.' 
Rel. Ext. With these letters and others of earlier and later dates 
Obregon enclosed newspaper clippings giving reports of the revolt. 



234 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

of tlie United Mexican States; and he will see the restoration of 
tranquillity with much satisfaction.^® 

On February 21, 1827, Poinsett wrote telling the eifect produced 
in Mexico wlien news reached there of the Nacogdoches revolt. In 
the debate in the Mexican congress members had not hesitated to 
express their opinion that the government of the United State? 
"was privy to tliis movement, if indeed it had not encouraged it. 
The latter opinion is boldly avowed by tlie Sol, a paper extremely 
inimical to the interests of the United States." The congress had 
appropriated five hundred thousand dollars to put down the insur- 
rection.^" About two weeks later Poinsett wrote that the expedi- 
tion against the insurgents in Texas had started for Vera Cruz 
whence it would sail for Matagorda, the rendezvous. It would 
consist of one thousand troops and would be Joined by ten thousand 
others from the interior provinces. "A desire was manifested to 
evince on this occasion great promptness and energ}% so as to pre- 
vent similar attempts being made elsewhere." In a conference 
which Poinsett had with President A^ictoria the latter had said he 
was satisfied the government of the United States had not encour- 
aged the revolt; but expressed a desire that the president of the 
United States should give some public manifestation of his dis- 
approbation.^^ The troops intended for Texas were assembled in 
Vera Cruz, and although word came of the collapse of the revolt, 
still they prepared to go to the Texas coast to guard against similar 
outbreaks. The la.rge force of provincial troops were not to join 
them, however, as originally planned. But the expedition got no 

'"Obregon to Secretario, 17 de Febrero, and 21 de Febrero de 1827. the 
latter enclosing a copy of Clay to Obregon, Feb. 19, 1827, quoted above, 
also Obregon to Clay, 20 de Febrero de 1827, politely acknowledging Clay's 
of the preceding day; all in MS. Rel. Ext. 

^'Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 21, 1827, MS. Dept. of St.. Mex., Desp., II. 
Early in February the IMexican foreign office had told Poinsett of a raid 
by Anglo-Americans on Nacogdoches Nov. 22, 1826. After some depreda- 
tions they had left, declaring they would return on December 15 Poin- 
sett replied that he would transmit this complaint to his government and 
felt sure that the aggressors would be punished. On receivincr it Clay 
returned a copy of orders to the military authorities on tlie border which 
he said he believed would put a stop to the offense and secure the pun- 
ishment of the guilty. Espinosa to Poinsett, Feb. 2, 1827; Poinsett to 
Espinosa, Feb. 4, 1827; Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1827: MS. Dept. of St., 
Mex., Desp., II: and Clay to Poinsett, March 24, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., 
Instr., XI, 283. 

»«Poinsett to Clay, March 8, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., 11. 



I* Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1S22-1829 235 

further than Vera Cruz. The state government endeavored to 
make use of them to resist the national authority; and in June 
the central authorities recalled them to Mexico City.'''' 

Although Adams and Clay in the note of February 19, quoted 
above, distinctly disavowed for the government any connection or 
sympathy with the revolt in Texas, yet they appeared ready to 
take advantage of the event to see if it had produced the change 
in sentiment at Mexico which Poinsett had predicted. Clay wrote 
on March 15, 1827, that the numerous and extensive grants of land 
by the Mexican authorities 

to citizens of the United States in the province of Texas authorize 
the belief that but little value is placed upon the possession of that 
province by that government. These grants seem to have been 
made without any sort of equivalent, judging according to our 
opinions of the value of land. They have been made to, and 
apparently in contemplation of being settled by, citizens from the 
United States. These emigrants will carry with them our prin- 
ciples of law, libertjr, and religion; and however much it might 
be hoped that they might be disposed to amalgamate with the 
ancient inhabitants of Mexico, so far as political freedom is con- 
cerned, it would be almost too much to expect that all collisions 
would be avoided on other subjects. Already some of these col- 
lisions have manifested themselves, and others, in the progress of 
time, may be anticipated with confidence. These collisions :ray 
insensibly enlist the sympathies and feelings of the two republics 
and lead to misunderstandings. 

The fixation of a line of boundary of the United States on the 
side of Mexico, should be such as to secure, not merely cercainty 
and apparent safety in the respective limits of the two countries, 
but the consciousness of freedom from all danger of attack on either 
side, and the removal of all motives for such attack. Tiiat of the 
Sabine brings Mexico nearer our great commercial capital than is 
desirable; and although we now are, and for a long time may 
remain, perfectly satisfied with the justice and moderation of our 
neig'ibor. still it would be better for both parties that neither 
shonM fpel that hp is in any condition of exposure on the remote 
contingency of an alteration in existing friendly sentiments. 

Impressed with these views, the President has thought the pres- 
ent might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation, at 
Mexico, to settle the boundary between the territories of the two 
republics. The success of the negotiation will probably be pro- 

^'Poinsett to Clay, March 24, June 5, June 16, and June 20, 1827. 
MS. Dept. of St., Max., Desp., II. 



236 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

nioted by throwing into it other motives than those which strictly 
belong to the subject itself. If we could obtain such a boundary 
as we desire, the Government of the United States might be dis- 
posed to pay a reasonable pecuniary consideration. The boundary 
which we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Eio 
del N"orte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth of the 
Rio Puerco, thence ascending this river to its source, and from 
its source, by a line due north, to strike the Arkansas, thence fol- 
lowing the course of the southern bank of llie Arkansas to its 
source, in latitude 42° north,**' and thence by that parallel of 
latitude to the South sea. The boundary thus described would, 
according to the United States Tanner's map, published in the 
United States, leave Santa Fe within the limits of Mexico and 
the whole of Red River or Rio Roxo and the Arkansas, as far up 
as it is probably navigable, within the limits assigned to the United 
States. If that boundary be unattainable, we would, as the next 
most desirable, agree to that of the Colorado, beginning at its 
mouth, in the bay of Bernardo, and ascending the ]iver to its 
source, and thence by a line due north to the Arkansas, and thence, 
as above traced, to the South sea. This latter boundary would 
probably also give us the whole of the Red River, would throw us 
somewhat farther from Santa Fe, but it would strike the Arkansas 
possibly at a navigable point. To obtain tlio first-described bound- 
ary, the President authorizes you to off(r to the Government of 
Mexico a sum not exceeding one million of dollars. If you find it 
impracticable to procure that line, you are then authorized to 
offer, for the above line of the Colorado, the sum of five hundred 
thousand dollars. If either of the above olTers should be accepted, 
you may stipulate for the payment of the sum of money, as you 
may happen to agree, within any period not less than three months 
after the exchange at the city of Washington of tlie ratifications 
of the treaty. 

Then follow instructions for stipulating, in case of success, that 
there should be common navigation of and common jurisdiction 
over the boundary river; that bona fide land grants should be eon- 
firmed; that the inhabitants should be given full rights as United 
States citizens; and that the delivery of the territory should be 
simultaneous with the payment of the consideration. A copy was 

"This error which was commonly made was due to looseness of state- 
ment rather than to ignorance. The treaty of 1819 used this language 
but added "if the source of the Arkansas river shall be found to fall north 
or south of latitude forty-two, then the line shall be run from the said 
source due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said 
parallel, etc." 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 237 

enclosed of Clay's note to Obregon of February 19, "in order to 
put you in possession of what has occurred here, and to enable you 
to efface any impression, should such exist at Mexico, that the 
United States have given countenance to the insurrection."*^ 

That Adams and Clay were in hearty accord in this attempt to 
purchase Texas cannot be doubted. On the day preceding that on 
which the instruction was sent, the former entered in his diary 
that the latter "spoke of a draft he had some time since submitted 
of an instruction to Poinsett tc opose tO' the Mexican Govern- 
ment the purchase of the province of Texas to the Eio del Norte 
or the Colorado. I asked him to let me see the draft again." The 
next day he entered the statement that Clay "read his instruction 
to Poinsett to propose the purchase of Texas. I advised him to 
leave out the offer of ships of war, and offer only money."*- In 
his long speech, or rather series of speeches, several years later on 
the Texas question and the right of petition, Adams cited this 
instruction, but did not dwell on the motive.*^ He declared that 
previous to this time he had uniformly favored acquiring Texas, 
saying: "I had myself, in the negotiation of our treaty with 
Spain, labored to get the Eio del Norte as, our boundary, and I 
adhered to the demand till Mr. Monroe and all his cabinet directed 
me to forego it."** 

«Clay to Poinsett, March 15, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XI, 270: 
extract in B. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., ISTo. 42. p. 8, and B. and F. St. P., 
XXVI, 837. See Rives, U. S. and Mex., I, 169. 

"Adams, Memoirs, March 14 and 15, 1827, VII, 239, 240. 

"Adams, "Texas Speech" in H. of R., 1838, 107. He said this offer was 
found to be highly disagreeable to Mexico, so was not pressed. 

"Adams's speech of April 15, 1842, Niles, Register, LXII, 138. In this 
speech he argued that because he wished Texas in 1825 and 1827 when 
slavery had 'been abolished there and could not have been restored had 
it been acquired, was no reason why he should be criticised for opposing 
the acquisition of Texas later. 

For brief studies of the attempt to purchase Texas in 1827, see Barker, 
"Jackson and the Texas Revolution," American Historical Retnew, XII, 
788; Reeves, Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 63; Garrison, Westioard 
Extension, 87; Bancroft, History of Mexico, V, 155; Von Hoist, U. S. 
(1828-1846), 554; McMaster, United States, V, 460; Yoakum in Comp. 
Hist, of Tex., I, 135; Kennedy, Texas, I, 370; Jay, Review of Mexican War, 
13; Robinson, Mexico and her Military Chieftains, 144. Most of these say 
Poinsett did not present the proposal to the Mexican government, citing 
Clay's "Raleigh Letter" of 1844, Niles, Reg., LXVI, 152, which says Poin- 
sett "forebore even to make an overture for that purpose." No serious 



238 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

When Poinsett received Clay's proposal to buy Texas he wrote : 
''I fear the sum offered for the territory is too small. The expenses 
of the government are so great that they don't regard so insignifi- 
cant a sum as a million as of much use to them."*^ However he 
cautiously approached the Mexican government on the subject a 
few days later. On May 19, 1837. he wrote the secretary of for- 
eign relations saying that the fortunate settlement of the diffi- 
culties in Texas suggested the importance of settling as early as 
possible and in a permanent manner the boundaries between the 
two countries. He added that he had been instructed by his gov- 
ernment to call attention to this fact and say that he was fully 
empowered to treat on the subject.*® Some time later he again 
cautiously approached the Mexican authorities on the subject, this 
time definitely suggesting the idea of purchase, though not in an 
official manner. Pkrly in the next year lie wrote Clay: 

I have taken great pains to ascertain what prospect of success 
there would be of the Congress ratifyiug the treaty if I could have 
prevailed upon the plenipotentiaries to alter the limits in the man- 
ner suggested by you, and am convinced that the attempt would 
fail and only excite an unfriendly feeling. I have therefore aban- 
doned it altogether. In a private conversation with one of the 
plenipotentiaries, I hinted at a remuneration in money to the 
Mexican government as an inducement to extend our boundary to 
the Eio del ISTorte; but he assured me it would be impossible to 
obtain either the consent of the government or of the CongTess to 
such a measure, because it would be considered a dismemberment 
of the Mexican territory, which is prohibited by the constitution. 
If both governments should fix upon the Rio del N"orte or any 
other point as the limits of the republics, the state of Texas would 
have no right to complain; but the general government could not 
sell any part of that state to us without violating the constitution 
and the legitimate rights of Texas. ^' 

regular negotiation was undertaken but Poinsett did sound the authori- 
ties on the subject. Adams, Memoirs, XI, 365, savs the offer was rejected. 

"Poinsett to' Clay, May 10, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. 
See Reeve-;. Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 64. 

"Poinsett to Sec. of St. of Mex., May 19, 1827, MS. Eel. Ext. 

"Poinsett to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. The 
above portion of this letter is omitted in the extract printed in H. Ex. 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 24; B and F. St. P., XXVI, 841. 

It is interesting to notice that the Mexican negotiator based his argu- 
ment for the unconstitutionality of the sale of Texas on the doctrine of 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 339 

Apart from these two very cautious attempts of Poinsett to open 
negotiations for carrying out Clay's instructions of March 15, 
1837, for the purchase of Texas, nothing of importance on the 
subject of limits passed between the two governments from that 
time until the beginning of the following year. In the meantime 
the Mexican commission to examine the country near the proposed 
boundary had completed its slow preparations and started to the 
scene of its labors. The two years which Poinsett had said would 
be necessary to complete the work, if a joint commission were sent 
as Alaman proposed, had more than passed before the Mexican 
commission started from the City of Mexico. In July, 1836, 
Poinsett Avrote that a commission had been appointed and that 
General Mier y Teran had been placed at its head. That gentle- 
man had told Poinsett that he expected to start in September of 
the same year; but the latter supposed his departure would not 
ta.ke place before October.*- It did not. TsTeither did it occur for 
more than a year later than that. On September 6, 1887, the 
Mexican congress appropriated fifteen thousand dollars to defray 
the expenses of the commission.*'-' A month later Poinsett wrote 
Clay that the commission had still not departed because the money 
was not in the treasury, and he was still trying to convince the 
government of the uselessness of the mission till the treaty had 
settled the boundary. •'^^ But still they persisted; and the money 
was soon forthcoming. On November 10, 1837, the commission 
started from the City of Mexico. Almost four months later it 
arrived at Bexar, March 1, 1828, and was ready to begin its work.^^ 

state rights. If the matter could have been submitted to a vote of the 
people of the state the difficulty would probably have disappeared. In 
1829 Van Buren suggested that this be done. 

^Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1826, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., Ill; 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 24; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 837. 

"Mexico, Leyes, Decretos, y Ordenes que forman el Derecho Int., 139. 

'^"Poinsett to Clay, Oct. 6, 1827, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., Ill; 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 25 ; B. and F. &t. P., XXVI, 840. 

^^Berlandier y Chovel, Diario de Viage de la Comision de Limites 
. . . bajo ." . . Mier y Teran, 1, 115. This seems to be a very 
much condensed and slightly changed translation of a manuscript m 
French by Berlandier filling seven octavo volumes on travels in Mexico 
and Texas between 1826 and 1834. This and a few other Berlandier 
manuscripts of interest in the history of Texas and the Mexican War 
have recently been purchased by the Library of Congress. Berlandier 
was the naturalist of the expedition, and his notes are of value chiefly 
from the scientific, especially the geographical standpoint. 



240 The South western. Historical Quarterly 

At about this time there came into the Mexican foreign office two 
extensive reports tracing the history of the Louisiana-Texas bound- 
ary from a very early period in an effort to get at a historical 
basis for fixing the boundary.-'^^- These seem to have strengthened 
the already existing determination of the government not to yield 
Texas or any portion of its territory. 

Although the Mexican negotiators had repeatedly insisted that 
it would be necessary to liave the information which the Teran 
commission was to gather before the treaty of limits could be con- 
cluded,- yet it had liardly departed before preparations were made 
to renew the negotiations immediately,^^ and had hardly gotten 
half way to the scene of its labors when a treat}^ was signed. When 
the commercial treaty which had been concluded July 10, 1836, 
was considered by the Mexican Chamber of Deputies early in the 
next year, that chamber passed a resolution declaring it would not 
consider that treaty further until an article should be inserted rec- 
ognizing the validity of the treaty of 1819 between the United States 
and Spain so far as it had to do with the boundary.^* On Jan- 
uary 8, 1828, after Poinsett had been trying in vain to induce 
the Mexican government to renew the negotiation for a commer- 
cial treaty (to take the place of that mentioned above, which the 
legislative bodies of both governments had refused to ratify), he 
wrote Clay that the Mexican negotiators had insisted that Mexico 
was 

invested Math all the rights of Spain and bound by all the obliga- 
tions of the mother country . . . and in short declared that 

The passport for General Teran whieli the Mexican government requested 
was delivered by Clay to Obregon on March 24, 1828. H. Ex. Docs., 
25c., Is., No. 42, p. 42; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 844. 

^^One of these is the "Informe de Padre P. M. J. Puellas acerea de los 
limites de Texas," dated Zaeateeas, Noviembre 28 de 1827, a report on 
documents in archives in that city on the subject, covering thirty-four 
pages. The other is "Extractos de la memoria del Padre Pichardo, y de 
los informes del Ministro y Consul de Espaiia en los Estados Unidos 
acerea de limites de Texas e invasioneg en su territorio." The tran- 
scripts of these extracts cover fifty typewritten pages and review several 
hundred pages of manuscripts. MS. Rel. Ext. 

"Translation of Speech of Victoria to Congress, Dec. 24, 1827, MS. Dept. 
of St., Mex., Desp., HI. 

"Resolution of April 2, 1827, Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 113; Poinsett 
to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., Ill; Extracts in 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 26; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 841. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 241 

if I did not consent to comply with the resolution of the Chamber 
of Deputies it would be useless to discuss the other articles of the 
treaty, as it was certain that Congress would not ratify any treaty 
which did not contain such a provision. I withdrew my opposi- 
tion; but observed that, as the treaty of navigation and commerce 
was for a limited period and that of limits perpetual, it would be 
better to make them distinct conventions, to which proposition the 
Mexican plenipotentiaries consented. 

It was in this connection that Poinsett explained in cipher, as 
quoted above, his cautious hint to one of the negotiators that the 
United States was willing to purchase Texas. He concluded that 
cipher : "Believing, therefore, that any attempt to alter the former 
treaty of limits would prove ineffective and only excite unfriendly 
feelings, I shall accept the proposal of the Mexican plenipoten- 
tiaries and renew the treaty of Washington of 1819."^'^ 

The first conference in the negotiation of the boundary treaty 
had occurred on the day on which Poinsett wrote the above explana- 
tion of his reasons for abandoning Texas. After the Mexican 
negotiators had explained their position Poinsett replied that, 

although the limits as settled by the treaty of Washington were 
liable to some objections and might be altered advantageously for 
both parties as he had before frequently explained, still if the Gov- 
ernment of Mexico insisted upon the execution of articles three 
and four of that treaty he could not object to it. . . . Any 
alteration of the treaty of Washington must depend upon the 
mutual consent of the present contracting parties.^® 

In the second conference, which occurred on January 10, the nego- 
tiators agreed upon the preamble declaring the purpose of the treaty 
and the first article saying, "the two high contracting parties will 
proceed forthwith to carry into full effect the third and fourth 

^Toinsett to Clay, Jan. 8, 1828, cited in note 54. 

The Mexican negotiators in explaining to the foreign office, said they 
believed the United States would not have attempted to change the 
boundary unless they had expected to gain an advantage at the expense 
of Mexico. Camacho and Esteva to Espinosa, 12 de Enero de 1828, 
Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 114. 

"''Protocol of first conference, Jan. 8, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 
42, p. 27; B. and F., St. P., XXVI, 841; Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 109. 
Enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., 
Desp., III. 



242 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

articles of said treaty."''' The second article of this treat}- is iu 
the exact words of the third article of the treaty of 1819 ; and the 
third article of this is the same as the fourth of that. The fourth 
and last article of this treaty says "the ratifications shall be 
exchanged at Washington within the term of four months, or 
sooner, if possible." On January 12, it was signed.^® 

Thus after a deadlock of more than two years over the question 
of limits the treaty was negotiated and signed all within four 
days. But they who marry in haste repent at leisure. The four 
months designated within which ratifications should be exchanged 
afforded ample time in case action should be prompt; but it did 
not allow for much unnecessary delay, since it required approxi- 
mately two months for a messenger to pass from Mexico to Wash- 
ington. The conclusion of the boundary treaty had removed the 
obstacle to the negotiation of the treaty of amity, commerce, and 
navigation, which was signed almost exactly a month later. Since 
the two were complementary the former was held till the latter 
was ready. That the government at Washington might have time 
to consider the treaty of limits and be ready to ratify it within 
the time allowed Poinsett forwarded a copy of it on February 7, 
when lie foresaw that the commercial treaty would soon be con- 
cluded.-'^^'' On February 22 his messenger set out from the City 
of Mexico bearing the official signed copies of both treaties, that 
of limits of Januar3- 12, and that of amity and commerce of 
February 14, 1828.<'o 

^n Poinsett's letter of Februai7 7, cited above, he gave some 
reasons for his abandoning Texas in addition to those explained 
in his letter of a month earlier. He said : 

This government and people have been kept purposely in a con- 
tinual state of excitement upon this very delicate question. We 
have been represeuted bv the agents of certain European powers 

"Protocal of second conference, Jan. 10, 1828, 77. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., 
No. 42, p. 28; B. and F. St. P., XXVI. 843; Mexico. Trat. y Com:.. 1, 
110, 112. 

"'For treaty see Am. St. P., For., VI, 046; Mexico. Trat. y Conv., I, 
115, 117. 

"Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, MS. Dept. of St.. Mex., Desp., Ill; 
extracts in H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42. p. 26; lUih, 2s., No. 351, p. 189; 
B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 843. 

•"Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 22, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex.. Desp., Ill; 
Am. St. P., For., VI, 948; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 190. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 243 

as the natural enemies of Mexico; and our desire to make alter- 
ations in tlie treaty of limits concluded with Spain and to deprive 
them of a portion of their territory was constantly urged in proof 
of our bad faith and insatiable ambition. It became necessary, 
therefore, for me to use very cautious language upon this subject, ' 
and in all my conversations and notes in relation to the question 
of limits to endeavor, if any change were made, that it should be 
at the suggestion of this government, so that the honorable dealing 
of the United States in this respect might at all times be manifest.^^ 

The Adams administration was apparently fully convinced by 
these two letters of Poinsett that it was useless to attempt longer 
to obtain Texas. Neither was there any considerable opposition 
in the Senate. Action was as prompt as could be desired. On 
April 21 Clay wrote Poinsett that the latter's messenger had ar- 
rived with the treaties and that they would be immediately laid 
before the Senate for their advice and consent."^ On the same 
day the treaty of limits was transmitted to the Senate by President 
Adams,**^ and referred by that body to its committee on foreign 
relations."* One week later that committee reported it back with- 
out amendment; the committee of the whole considered it at once, 
also without amending, and reported it to the Senate; and that 
body immediatel}' proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the 
resolution to advise and consent to its ratification, and approved 
the resolution, thirty-eight yeas to three nays."^ Two days later, 
April 30, 1828, Clay wrote Obregon, the Mexican minister in 
Washington, "I am ready to proceed in the exchange of the rati- 
fications of the treaty at any time that may suit your convenience 
within the period prescribed," reminding him that only a few days 
remained. "^^ On May 1 Obregon acknowledged Clay's note of the 
day before, but expressed his regret that he did not have it in his 

'^^Poinsett to Clay, Feb. 7, 1828, as cited in note 59. This very inter- 
esting portion of this letter is not printed, in any of the three extracts 
from it cited in the same note. 

^=Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 98; 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 17. 

«*Am. St. P., For., VI, 946. 

^^Senate Ex. Jour., Til, 604. 

^^Ibid., 605. Those opposing were Benton, Ellis, and Smith of South 
Carolina. 

''•'Clay to Obregon, April 30, 1828, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 46; 
B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846. 



244 The Soutliwestern Historical Quarterly 

power to effect the exchange immediately, and explained that he 
had not yet received the ratification by his own government.®^ 
There remained eleven days before the time set for exchanging 
the ratifications would expire. 

In Mexico, on the other hand, action on the treaty was very 
different. Poinsett reported on April 24 that its progress had 
been delayed by the extreme indolence of the man who had been 
secretary of state. He had kept the treaty for more than two 
months without presenting it to congress, although Poinsett had 
warned him repeatedly of the prejudice to Mexican interests caused 
by the delay.®^ It liad to be acted on by both houses of the Mexican 
congress. The lower house had ratified it before Poinsett wrote 
this letter of April 24,''^ and two days later he wrote that the 
Senate had ratified it. The action of congress, he said, was 
prompt enough but it was impossible to get it' to Washington in 
time to exchange the ratifications before the four months' time 
limit should expire.'^*' In spite of this the Mexican ratifications 
were transmitted to Obregon with instructions to effect the 
exchange, and that minister notified Clay on August 2, 1828, that 
he had Just received them and was ready to effect the exchange 
when convenient to the United States government; but was in- 
formed that since the time limit had expired it would have to be 
laid before the Senate again at the next session to get its approval 
before the exchange could be effected.''^ 

Although Poinsett's advances had been very guarded and he 
had not really made any offer to purchase Texas, yet the fact that 

^'Obregon to Clay, May 1, 1828, E. Ex. Docs., 25c.. Is., No. 42, p. 46; 
B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846. 

'-'Espinosa who had been secretary of state for foreign relations nearly 
two years was succeeded by Canedo on March 8, 1828. See Bocanegra, 
Memorias. I, 557. This was not quite two months after signing the 
treaty. Had the new secretary and both houses of congress acted as 
promptly as the authorities at Washington there still would have been 
time. 

••Poinsett to Clay, April 24. 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 28; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 845. 

'"Poinsett to Clay, April 26, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; 
n. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 29; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 845. 

"Obregon to Clay, Aug. 2, 1828, and Brent to Obregon, same date, 
H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 47, 48; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 846, 
847. On May 10 Canedo had informed Poinsett of the ratification by his 
government. H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 202. For brief discussion 
of this treaty and its failure, see Rives, U. S. and Mex., I, 170. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 245 

the United States wished and was endeavoring to do so became 
known, since, as Poinsett said, there were no secrets in Mexico. 
Greatly exaggerated reports concerning the matter reached Euro- 
pean courts. In the middle of the year 1828, Eocafuerte, the 
Mexican representative in Ijondon, wrote his government that a 
rumor was current in diplomatic circles there to the effect that 
Mexico had already ceded Texas to the United States for the sum 
of thirty-five million pesos; and that this was the result of the 
scandalous intrigues of the minister of the United States at the 
Mexican capital. He said he could not believe it, but neither 
could he deny it.'^- As soon as Eocafuerte's letter reached Mexico 
his government instructed him to deny the rumor at once, since 
it was utterly without foundation.'^ 

In the latter part of this year 1828, a curious request for the 
cession of Texas reached the Mexican government from a very 
different source and for a very different purpose. It came from 
London but not from the British government. It is of small im- 
portance but of considerable interest. Eobert Owen, the well 
known socialistic philanthropist, presented through Eocafuerte a 
request that the government of Mexico should cede to him the 
state of Coahuila and Texas as a place where he might work out 
his philanthropic plans for the benefit of all mankind. He pro- 
posed that it should be an entirely independent state, and that its 
independence should be guaranteed by Mexico, the United States 
and Great Britain. As the chief consideration other than the 
philanthropic ones which should induce Mexico to grant his request, 
he argued, 

That it is a frontier province between the Mexican and North 
American republics which is now 'settling under such circum- 
stances as are likely to create jealousies and irritations between 
citizens of these states and which most probably at som.e future 
period will terminate in a war between the two republics. This 
consideration alone, in the opinion of many experienced statesmen, 
would render it a wise measure in the Mexican republic to place 
this province under the new arrangements about to be proposed. 

The elaboration of his plans fills eight typewritten pages. In 

'^Eocafuerte to Secretario, Londres, 16 de Julio de 1828, MS, Rel. Ext. 
"[Secretario to Eocafuerte], 22 de Septiembre de 1828, MS, Rel. Ext. 



346 The Soutliivestei-n Historical Quarterly 

Eocafuerte's letter transmitting the memorial he said he had told 
Owen there was not the slightest prospect of the government's 
granting the request, for, "although it is verj^ beautiful, very 
plausible, and very philanthropic on paper it is unrealizable in 
practice."^* 

Numerous notes passed between Poinsett and the Mexican gov- 
ernment concerning difficulties arising out of the operation of a 
law which had been passed in September, 1823, allowing goods 
intended for consumption in Texas to come in duty free for seven 
years. Poinsett presented complaints that officials were not allow- 
ing this privilege. Caiiedo declared an erroneous interpretation 
had been placed on the law, that there were many frauds prac- 
ticed, and that to prevent these it had been ordered that all goods 
should pay the duty, but that afterwards reimbursements should be 
made for goods proved to have been used in Texas. The privi- 
lege was still abused and merchants of Monclova complained be- 
cause they no longer had the benefit of it. Poinsett argued with 
the Mexican officials that the lax enforcement of the law by the 
Mexican authorities on the coast had encouraged merchants of 
the United States to engage in this trade and they should not be 
made to suffer by the sudden withdrawal of the privilege. He 
attempted to have time allowed to notify shippers. But an order 
was issued in April, 1828, to treat as contrabandists all who 
attempted to land goods under the law. Poinsett informed Clay, 
April 23, 1828, that the Mexican government had decided to put 
a stop immediately to the free entry of goods for consumption by 
the inhabitants of Texas.'^^ 

In the absence of treaty stipulations for the purpose there was 

"Rocafuerte to Secretario, Londres, 15 cle Julio de 1828, and Owen's 
memorial accompanying, MS. Rel. Ext. 

"Poinsett to Secretario, Sept. 10, 1827, MS. Rel. Ext.; Cafiedo to Poin- 
sett, April 8, 1828; Poinsett to Canedo, April 11, 1828; Cafledo to Poin- 
eett, April 21, 1828; all enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 15, 1828, 
MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Dcsp., IV; Poinsett to Clay," April 23, 1828, 
MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., III. The last cited is printed in H. Ex. 
Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 201. 

Bancroft, 'N. Mex. ^ts. and Tex., II, 114, says the exemption expired 
in 1830. This is the time it would have legally expired had it not been 
withdrawn. He probably follows Filisola, Memorias, I, 163, which says: 
"al acabar aquel mismo ailo de 1830 debian terminar las esceneiones y 
privilegios concedidos a las distritos de Tejas, Monclova, y Rio Grande, 
para la introduccion libre de derechos de todo lo que necesitasen para el 
uso de aquellos habitantes." 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 347 

no regular means for the recovery by the United States of abscond- 
ing debtors, runaway slaves, and escaped criminals who had taken 
refuge in Mexican territory. Clay wrote Poinsett in January, 
1828, that information had come to Washington to the effect that 
impediments were placed in the way of recovering such, especially 
in Texas. A resolution of the House of Eepresentatives had 
assumed the existence of such impediments and called on the Presi- 
dent for information regarding the matter. Obregon had declared 
that he knew of no such obstacles. Poinsett was instructed to 
make inquiries and in case he found that such existed he was to 
protest against them.'^^ In April, 1828, Clay instructed Poinsett 
to ask the surrender of several jDersons named Hardin who were 
charged with having committed an atrocious murder in Tennessee 
and had fled to Texas. The treaties concluded and just received, 
he said, provided for such extradition, but since ratifications had 
not been exchanged it could not be demanded. On June 3 Poin- 
sett presented the request. Expecting that there would be a long 
delay before the government decided what to do, he applied through 
a friend directly to the governor of the state of Coahuila and 
Texas, asking that the men be secured until the government should 
decide. But only three days after the request was presented 
Cane do replied to Poinsett that the president had directed the 
governor of Coahuila and Texas to arrest and surrender the mur- 
derers. Later that governor wrote Poinsett directly that he would 
do so.'^^ 

The Fredonian revolt that had collapsed so speedily early in 1827 
was only the beginning of a series of disturbances in Texas during 
the following two years, which called for the exchange of numerous 
diplomatic notes. In August of 1827 Obregon wrote his govern- 
ment of another attack which it was reported would soon be made 

'^Clay to Poinsett, Jan. 12, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 53; 
Clay to Adams, Jan. 14, 1828, and Adams to H. of R., Jan. 15, 1828, 
Am. Bt. P., For., VI, 822. 

"Clay to Poinsett, April 21, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Instr., XII, 98; 
H. Ex^ Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 17; ibid., pp. 18-32 are the documents 
containing the charges against the Hardins ; Poinsett to Caiiedo, June 3, 
1828, Canedo to Poinsett, June 7, 1828, Poinsett to Clay, July 12, 1828, 
MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV. The last letter is printed in E. Ex. 
Docs., 25c., 2s., No.. 351, p. 214. Poinsett to Clay, June 9, 1828, MS. 
U. S. Embassy Archives, Mexico. This last is missing in the files of the 
Dept. of State. 



348' The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

on Nacogdoches by a band who had set out from ISTew Orleans 
\inder the guise of a surveying party going to mark out a grant 
•of land that had been made in Texas, but ujaon reaching the 
border had assumed a warlike aspect and were planning the 
descent on JSTacogdoches with the assistance of the Cherokee In- 
•dians.'^^ In October of the same year he wrote that there was talk 
of the United States taking control of the disorderly Mexican ter- 
ritory south of the Bed River, to prevent the Indians residing 
there from making attacks on citizens of the United States north 
of that river. Obregon advised his government to take steps to 
prevent this.'" In April of 1828 Canedo complained to Poinsett 
that a party of fifteen men from the United States had made an 
irruption into Texas and at Nacogdoches had declared themselves 
the advance guard of a republican army consisting of several hun- 
dred which was going to march on Bexar or Guadalupe. Poinsett 
replied promptly that he would submit the matter to his govern- 
ment and ask that measures be taken to prevent such movements.^" 
Indians were causing trouble by attacking each other across the 
border. In July, 1828, Caiiedo called Poinsett's attention to the 
fact tliat the Comanche Indians living in Mexican territory had 
asked permission to pursue and recover property that had been 
taken from them by Indians from the United States who had 
returned thither. The request was denied through respect for the 
territory of a friendly state.®^ 

About the middle of the year 1828 reports reached the govern- 
ment in Mexico that Spanish refugees in New Orleans were plan- 
ning to co-operate with the Spanish authorities in Cuba in an 
expedition to the Texas coast. Orders were at once despatched to 
the governor of Coahuila and Texas to remove all Spaniards from 

^'Obregon to Secretario, 10 de Agosto de 1827, MS. Eel. Ext. 

"Same to same, 13 de Octubre de 1827, iUd. 

^Tauedo to Poinsett. April 12, 1828. Poinsett to Cauedo, April 19, 1828, 
enclosures with Poinsett to Clay, July 14. 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., 
Desp., IV. In Poinsett to Clay, April 23, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., 
Desp., Ill and 77. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 201, mention is made 
of this raid; and also of the violation of Mexican sovereignty by a party 
of one hundred hunters near the northern limit of California. Poinsett 
explained that this was probably due to ignorance of the exact location 
of the line. 

*'Caiiedo to Poinsett, July 15, 1828, enclosed with Poinsett to Clay, 
July 16, 1828, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV; H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., 
No. 351, p. 242. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 349 

the coast as soon as the expedition should approach; and a secret 
agent was sent to Kew Orleans to keep the government informed. 
That agent reported in September that there certainly had been 
talk of snch a movement early in the year; but the schemers had 
neither sufficient men nor money. Their chief, Jose Lara, had 
gone to Cuba, expecting a reward for his zeal. In November the 
same secret agent reported a still more visionary movement. This 
was led by a Spanish officer who had been expelled from Mexico. 
He was tr3dng to incite the poorest of his countrymen and some 
Mexicans of the same class to join him in a disorderly plundering 
raid. He assured them they could collect a hundred and fifty or 
two hundred men, go to Texas and proclaim the devil, if they 
wanted to, surprise some settlements, and get away with what 
they could carry. ^^ These movements amounted to nothing and 
would not deserve serious notice in themselves; but the Mexican 
authorities were unduly alarmed at them and they had no little 
influence on the rising tide of hostility in Mexico for the United 
States which so deeply affected the diplomatic relations. Similar 
reports continued through 1828 and 1829, from agents both in 
New Orleans and in Texas, especially from General Teran, who was 
near the border as head of the boundary commission. On July 
29, 1829, Bocanegra., who was then secretary of state for foreign 
affairs, wrote Poinsett that he was instructed by President Guer- 
rero to communicate intelligence Just received from New Orleans. 
It was to the effect that Jose Lara was enlisting men in New 
Orleans under a commission from the government of Havana, and 
that he had already sent to that government more than four hun- 
dred recruits. It was also reported that at several places along 
the border United States troops Avere being collected and drilled 
and supplies collected. He asked that these acts in violation of 
neutrality and in aid of the Spanish expedition against Mexico be 
prevented.^^ Two days after receiving this Poinsett made a spirited 
reph^, declaring that the vigilant execution of the laws in the 

*-Pedraza to Secretario, 22 de Julio de 1828, Secietario to Pedraza, 26 
de Julio de 1828, Secretario to Gobernador de Coah. y Tex., 26 de Julio 
de 1828, Grobernador de Coah. y Tex. to Secretario, 11 de Agosto de 1828, 
Secretario de Rel. to Secretario de G-uerra, 27 de Agosto de 1828, Mar- 
tinez to Secretario, Nueva Orleans, 23 de Septiembre de 1828, same to same 
17 de Noviembre de 1828, all in MS. Rel. Ext. 

^^Bocanegra to Poinsett, July 29, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., IV. 



250 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

United States against foreign enlistment made incredible such 
things as Bocanegra said were going on in New Orleans. He ven- 
tured to suggest that Lara was doing no more than transport to 
Cuba Spaniards expelled from Mexico who were unable to support 
themselves and were willing to take advantage of the offer made by 
the Captain General of Cuba of refuge and support in that island. 
He declared also that he had no knowledge of such military prep- 
arations on the border as Bocanegra had mentioned, except from 
statements published in libelous papers in Mexico by enemies of 
the liberties of America who were striving to disturb the friendly 
relations between the two republics. They had no foundation in 
fact. He said if Spain attacked Mexico the United States would 
remain neutral; but would be friendly and sympathetic with 
Mexico.-* In reporting to Van Buren, the secretary of state in 
the new Jackson administration, this correspondence with Boca- 
negra, Poinsett said the conduct of the Mexican government with 
reference to all foreign nations was ridiculous and ought only to 
excite our compassion. They regarded Mexico as the most favored 
nation on earth and thought all others were jealous of her, espe- 
cially the United States. He said General Teran had never ceased 
to arouse the fears of the government regarding the attitude of 
the United States toward Texas; and frequent insinuations by 
Europeans of Ameiican designs on Texas confirmed these fears. 
He had seen a letter of June 3 from Teran, "who has always been 
attached to the English interests. This person assures the govern- 
ment in his last despatches that we are making vast preparations 
to attack that country and have already fifteen thousand men on 
the frontier." Teran enlarged on the great size, fertility and 
natural resources of Texas, and the consequent reasons why Mexico 
should never yield possession. -•'' Another note from Bocanegra on 
August 20 telling of more positive announcements of military 
preparations in the United States against Mexico elicited the next 
day pointed denials from I'oinsett and renewed declarations of the 
friendly disposition of the United States for Mexico. He said he 
thought the agents of the government gave too easy credence to 
false statements. In reporting this correspondence to Van Buren 

"Poinsett to Bocanegra, July 31, 1829, ibid. 
^'Poinsett to Van Buren, Aug. 2, 1829, ibid. 



Texas and the Boundary. Issue, 1822-1829 251 

Poinsett said he had declared in a conference with Bocanegra on 
the subject that until the treaty of amity and commerce should 
be ratified military movements on the frontiers must be expected. 
The treaty contained a provision for restraining the Indians on 
the border. He had said that if Mexico did not restrain her In- 
dians from attacks on the United States side, the United States 
would pursue such tribes for punishment even to the gates of 
Mexico. In the beginning of this letter to Van Buren Poinsett 
explained that the Mexican Senate had addressed to Bocanegra an 
insolent demand for information regarding the reported activities 
of the United States, and Poinsett believed that body wanted to 
plunge the country into war with the United States hoping that 
would overthrow the existing state of things in Mexico. He de- 
clared, "I will not therefore suffer myself to be provoked; nor will 
I personalty yield to their attacks, although my residence in this 
country has become almost insupportable."^" 

It will be recalled that it was the second of August, 1828, when 
Obregon was told that the ratifications of the boundary treaty of 
January 13, 3828, could not be exchanged till that treaty should 
again be acted on by the Senate of the United States at the next 
session, because the four months' time limit had expired.®'^ This 
necessarily delayed the matter till the following winter. But 
action was not taken even then. In the middle of April of the 
following year Montoya, the Mexican charge at Washington, 
brought the matter to the attention of the new Jackson adminis- 
tration by saying in a letter to Van Buren that he presumed the 
treaty had been presented to the Senate as had been said would 
be necessary, and asking whether the secretary of state was now 
ready to proceed with the exchange of the ratifications, explaining 
that the Mexican government, desirous of effecting the exchange, 
had invested him with full powers for the purpose. Van Buren 
replied that he was not fully informed as to the reasons 
why the preceding administration had not again submitted 
the treaty of limits to the Senate; but supposed it was because 

^•^Boeanegra to Poinsett, Aug. 20, 1829, Poinsett to Bocanegra, Aug. 21, 
1829, Poinsett to Van Buren, Aug. 22, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., 
IV; all of these except the important beginning of the last are in H. Ex. 
Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, p. 291-294. 

^^See above p. 244. 



25^ The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

Mexican action on the commercial treaty was expected and it was 
desired to have the Senate act on the two together, and this 
expectation had been disappointed. It would be necessary still 
to submit the treaty to the Senate to be acted on again, and he 
promised that it should be submitted at the next session In the 
meantime he hoped the Mexican ratifications of the commercial 
treaty would arrive so the two could be submitted to the Senate 
together.^^ Again the exchange was delayed, this time for the 
most of a year. But before this time was gone the new adminis- 
tration had determined to try its hand at negotiating a new treaty 
of limits which should supersede the other and give Texas to the 
United States. 

Early in March of 1829 in reviewing at length, for the informa- 
tion of the new administration, the whole of his diplomatic activi- 
ties and difficulties in Mexico, Poinsett discussed very briefly the 
boundary negotiotions ;^'' again in July he reviewed his negotia- 
tions for the treaties, tracing those for the treaty of limits to the 
conclusion of the pending treaty a year and a half earlier, and 
concluded by declaring: "I am still convinced that we never can 
expect to extend our boundary south of the river Sabine, without 
quarreling with these people, and driving them to court a more 
strict alliance with some European power.'""* This renewed asser- 
tion of Poinsett's belief that it would never be possible to secure 
Texas peaceably did not reach the Department of State until nearly 
a month after the new administration had matured its project for 
the acquisition of Texas and despatched instructions for the pur- 
pose. It is doubtful whether it would have affected the situation, 
even had It arrived before the instructions were sent. The plan 
seems to have developed slowly. ISTearly six months of Jackson's 
term was goue before it took shape. The earliest documentary 
evidence of the growth of the plan which is preserved in the cor- 

"Montoya to Van Buren, April 16, 1829, and Van Buren to Montoya, 
April 22, 1829, B. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 49; B. and F. m. P., 
XXVI, 848. 

"•Poinsett to Sec. of St., March 10, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., 
Desp., IV. 

•"Poinsett to Van Buren, July 22, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Mex., Desp., 
TV; E. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 29, prints a brief extract and the 
rest is in IMd., 2s., No. 351, p. 285. This was received at the Dept. of 
St. Sept. 22. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1S22-1829 253 

respondence of Van Buren is a report of Anthony Butler. It is 
not dated but seems to have been presented about August 11, 1829, 
since a letter from Jackson of the following day says, "I am pleased 
with the document you sent me respecting Texas, and will be 
happy to see you and Col. Butler whenever it may suit your con- 
venience." That this was not the origin of the project is evident 
from Butler's opening his report with the statement, "In nego- 
tiating for Texas a variety of considerations present themselves," 
and his reference later to the "anticipated negotiation." He dis- 
cusses at considerable length the soil, climate, resources, and water 
ways of Texas and the value of the province to the United States. 
"The considerations which present themselves" he discusses under 
seven heads. In Van Buren's instructions he embodied nearly 
ever}^ suggestion which Butler here makes. In addition to his 
arguments Butler adds a gentle appeal to personal ambition by 
suggesting that the people of the south and west are so vitally 
interested in the matter "as to secure for that man who may 
accomplish the recover}^ of Texas their thanJ<:s, their confidence, 
and their gratitude," which, he adds, is likely hereafter to amount 
to something more than complimentary toasts or newspaper eulo- 
gisms. Jackson's letter referred to above shows that they had 
been studying with some care Poinsett's explanations of the reasons 
why the offer to purchase Texas in 1827 had failed, for he says that 
the constitutional question can be solved ; two million added to the 
one million offered will amend the Mexican constitution. Another 
document which seems to have had a marked influence in shaping 
the final instructions is an unsigned and undated "Project for the 
acquisition of [the] province of Texas" which sets forth the motive 
for the negotiation by saying, "To counteract the evils growing 
out of the surrender of that part of Louisiana west of the Sabine 
and east of the Eio del Norte or Grand Eiver, it is proposed to 
open a negotiation for the retrocession of the same to the United 
States." It gives several suggestions as to how Poinsett might 
approach the Mexican government and says the present threatened 
invasion of Mexico by Spain and the deranged condition of the 
finances "makes the time a yery propitious one for the ascertain- 
ment of her views in regard to this territory as Mr. P. can give his 
enquiries the character of individual solicitude for her welfare and 



254 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

a desire to relieve her embarrassments rather than turn them to 
the advantage of his own country." On August 13 Jackson made 
a rough outline draft of the instructions to be given to Poinsett. 
With these various documents as a basis Van Buren prepared first 
a rough outline draft and then the complete instructions which 
were dated August 25, 1839." 

These instructions begin by saying : "It is the wish of the Presi- 
dent that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the 
Mexican government for the purchase of so much of the province 
of Texas as is hereinafter described, or for such a part thereof as 
they can be induced to cede to us." The President was convinced 
of the necessity of the proposed acquisition in order to guard the 
western frontier, protect JSTew Orleans, and secure the undisturbed 
possession of the valley of the Mississippi River with all its tribu- 
taries. "The boundary at present assumed by Mexico is deemed 
objectionable" for various reasons which he sets forth. There was 
some uncertainty as to which of two streams emptying into Sabine 
Bay was the true Sabine Eiver. Whichever it should be, that river 
was navigable only by small vessels and never would sustain suffi- 
cient commerce to warrant the maintenance there of custoin houses, 
without which it would be "impossible to prevent that fronner from 

"Butler to Secretary of State, [Aug. 11, 1829] ; Jackson to Van Buren, 
Aug. 12, 1829; "Project for [the] acquisition of the province of Texas" 
[Aug. 13, 1829] ; Jackson's draft of instructions to Poinsett, Aug. 13, 
1829; Van Buren's outline draft, 16 pp.; First draft in different hands 
with numerous corrections and containing practically everything in the 
final instructions, 32 pp.; Second draft dated Aug. 25, 1829, 37 pp.; all 
in Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress, IX and X. The conjectured 
dates have been adopted from the Library of Congress Calendar of the 
Van Buren papers prepared by W. C. Ford and Miss Elizabeth West and 
printed in 1910. Jackson's draft of Aug. 13, is printed in Reeves, Diplo- 
macy under Tyler and Polk, 65 note, citing the Jackson papers, Avhich 
seems to be an error. 

Most writers on Texas history discuss these instructions of Aug. 25, 
1829, and in connection with them mention the offer to pvirchase made 
by Clay on March 15, 1827, and his instructions to Poinsett on March 26, 
1825, to negotiate for a westward extension of the boundary. See How- 
ren. The Quaetekly, XVI, 383-387; Barker, "Jackson and the Texas 
Rev.," A. H. R., XII. 789; McMaster, U. S., V, 461 and 542-555, which 
dwells at great length on the efforts of the Jacksonian newspapers to 
facilitate the purchase; Kennedy, Texas, I, 372. The following five give 
very brief discussions: Bancroft, N. Mex. Sts. and Tex., II, 89; MacDon- 
ald, Jacksonian Democracy, 211; Yoakum in Gomp. Hist, of Tex., I, 129; 
the remainder are strongly prejudiced: Von Hoist, U. .S'. (^828-^8.^6), 555; 
Jay, Review of Mex. War, 15; Adams, ''Texas Speech" in H. of R., 1838, 
114-121; Tornel, Tejas y los Estados Unidos, 3, 10; Filisola^ Memorias, 
I, 158-162. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1S22-1829 255 

becoming the seat of an extensive system of smuggling." The lands 
tfast of the Sabine were poor and occupied by persons of an objec- 
tionable character who would continue to create incessant diffi- 
culties and broils which would foster and influence the "spirit of 
jealousy to which our neighbors are already too much inclined/' 
His enumeration of the reasons which ought to induce Mexico to 
be willing to make the cession he begins by saying: "Nothing 
would be more adverse to the feelings of the President than to 
give that government reason to believe that he is capable of taking 
advantage of their necessities to obtain from them any portion of 
the Mexican territory, the cession of which would impair the true 
interests or commit the honor of that country." He then argues: 

The comparatively small value of the territory in cjuestion to 
Mexico; its remote and disconnected situation; the unsettled con- 
dition of her affairs; the depressed and languishing state of her 
finances ; and the still, and at this moment particularly, threaten- 
ing attitude of Spain all combine to point out and recommend to 
Mexico the policy of parting with a portion -of her territory of 
very limited and contingent benefit to supply herself with the 
means of defending the residue with the better prospect of success 
and with less onerous burdens to her citizens. It is for the fed- 
eral government of Mexico, if they approve of the policy of doing 
so, to judge of their constitutional power to make the cession. It 
is believed that no doubt could exist on that account if the eon- 
sent of the state of Coahuila were obtained; and if the view we 
take of the true interests of the republic of Mexico are not founded 
in error, it is supposed that such consent would not be withheld. 

An argument which Poinsett was to use his judgment in suggest- 
ing was that the internal disturbances and revolutions of Mexico 
rendered a dissolution of the republic possible ; and it was gener- 
ally conceded that in such event Texas would be the first to strike 
a blow for independence, the example of which would endanger the 
unity of the rest. The aggressive character of the settlers on the 
United States side of the border; the settlement of adventurous 
persons in the prohibited zone on the Mexican side; and the lack 
of harmony between the non- Spanish settlers in Texas and the 
government were all causes of discord and heartburnings between 
the two governments that should be removed if possible. The 
Comanche Indians in Texas were verv troublesome to the settle- 



256 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

jneiits and occasioned great expense to the Mexican government to 
:niaintain garrisons there. Other tribes were moving into the 
region and increasing the trouble. 

The territory of which the cession was desired by the United 
States was described as all lying east of a line drawn through the 
.center of the desert or Grand Prairie between the Kueces and the 
Kio Grande "north to the mountains dividing the waters of the 
IXic Grande del Norte from those that run eastward to the Gulf, 
and until it strikes our present boundary at the forty-second 
degree of north latitude." If he found that the Mexican govern- 
ment objected to this line because it contained the large Mexican 
settlements of San Antonio de Bexar and La Bahia, but still found 
that govermnenb disposed to part with any portion of the territory 
in question then he was authorized to accept any of three other 
lines, regarding those farthest west as most desirable. The second 
should begin at the mouth of the La Vaca, ascend the left bank 
of that stream to its head, then due north to the Colorado, up the 
west bank of that river to its head, and "thence by the most direct 
course that will intersect our line at the forty-second degree of 
north latitude and include the head waters of the Arkansas and 
Eed Elvers." The third line was to commence at the mouth of 
the Colorado and follow its west bank all the way and thence as 
described in the second. The fourth was to follow the west bank 
of the Brazos from its mouth to its source and thence to the forty- 
second degree as the two previous. Poinsett was authorized to 
make such alterations in these lines as should appear to him 
clearly beneficial. 

The line proposed as the one most desirable to us would constitute 
a natural separation of the resources of the two nations. It is 
the center of a country uninhabitable on the Gulf; and on the 
mountains so difficult of access and so poor as to furnish no induce- 
ment for a land intercourse; and of course no theater for those 
differences that are almost inseparable from a neighborhood of 
commercial interests. It corresponds with the habitual feelings 
of the people of Mexico and with the avowed policy of the Mexican 
government by caiising a wide separation and difficulties of inter- 
course between the inhabitants of the two countries, and by pre- 
venting those excitements and bickerings invariably produced by 
the contiguous operation of conflicting laws, habits, and interests. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 257 

Tlie price to be offered for Texas Van Buren introduces by saying, 

The President does not desire the proposed cession without render- 
ing a just and fair equivalent for it. He therefore authorizes you 
to offer to the Mexican government for a cession according to the 
first-mentioned boundary a sum not exceeding four millions of 
dollars; and so strong are his convictions of its great value to the 
United States that he will not object if yoii should find it indis- 
pensably necessary to go as high as five millions. 

For each of the other lines Poinsett was authorized to decide upon 
and offer what he considered a proportionate amount of the pur- 
chase price. It would be preferable to make the payments in three 
or four equal annual installments; but if necessary the whole sum 
could be paid within four months after the exchange of ratifica- 
tions and delivery of the possession of the ceded territory. In 
case of success other details were provided for, such as rights of 
navigation and jurisdiction, validity of land grants, and the exten- 
sion of personal and political rights to the inhabitants of the ceded 
territory. ^- 

Anthony Butler, the author of the report mentioned above as 
one of the principal bases of the instructions to jDurchase Texas, 
was selected by the administration to bear the letter to Poinsett. 
When in the middle of October of this year 1829 Poinsett was 
recalled at the request of the Mexican government, Butler, already 
on the ground, was appointed to represent the United States at 
Mexico, with the rank of charge. On October 17 Jackson signed 
the letter investing Butler with full power to conduct the nego- 
tiation for Texas. The instructions of August 25, which he had 
borne to Poinsett, were to be his guide.''^ 

"'Van Buren to Poinsett, Aug. 25, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Secret Record, 
T, 39; E. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 10; B. and F. St. P., XXVI, 850. 
This was not entered in the regular volume of Instructions in the Depart- 
ment of State ; nor in the regular volume of the Archives of the U. S. 
Embassy in Mexico. Jackson's full power to Poinsett to negotiate con- 
cerning the matter bears the same date as the instructions. See Van 
Buren MSS. Library of Congress, X. 

'^Butler's commission as bearer of the despatch is Van Buren to Butler, 
Aug. 24, 1829, MS. Dept. of St., Secret Record, I, 52; his full power is 
Jackson to Butler, Oct. 17, 1829, Ibid., 53; his instructions are Van 
Buren to Butler, Oct. 16, and P. S. Oct. 17, 1829, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., 
No. 351, pp. 40-53. 

"Butler, an old comrade in arms of Jackson . . . lacked moral 
character and fitness for any position of trust. No worse selection for 



258' The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

Poinsett, convinced of the uselessness of attempting to acquire 
Texas, and feeling tliat his influence with the government was 
gone, appears to have refrained from even suggesting the new 
project. But the fact that the United States was ready to make a 
proposition for the purchase of Texas became public shortly after 
Poinsett's departure. On January 9, 1830, a paragraph appeared 
in the newspaper called El Sol declaring that, 

A few days before the departure of Mr. Poinsett from this capital, 
the American Colonel Butler arrived here, commissioned, as it is 
said, by the government of Washington, to negotiate with ours for 
the cession of the province of Texas for the sum of five millions of 
dollars. As we are not informed that, so far, the colonel has made 
any overtures on the subject, we presume that he does the new 
administration the justice to suppose it incapable of lending itself 
to a transaction as prejudicial and degrading to the republic as 
it would be disgraceful to the minister who would subscribe to it. 

Butler was mystified at being so quickly found out. He wrote 
Van Buren the next day that the paragraph was "a very remark- 
able one. You perceive that they undertake not only to assert 
that the object of my mission is the purchase of Texas, but they 
also state a price to be paid for the cession! I have not time to 
say much on this matter at present, but I will endeavor to unravel 
the mystery hereafter."^* In the weeks preceding and following 
this a multitude of violently anti- American newspaper articles and 
pamphlets issued from the Mexican press, voicing the suspicion 
generally felt that the United States was attempting to dismember 
the Mexican republic. As evidence of the desire of the govern- 

a diplomatic position could have been made. . . . [He] was charged 
with being a speculator in Texas lands, a gambler, a drunkard, and a 
liar. But this last epithet came from Jackson himself some years after- 
wards, when his shortness of memory afforded him an easy escape from 
the entanglements of fact. It is safe to say that Butler's mission, dis- 
creditable and even disgraceful, had much to do with the unsatisfactory 
course of our diplomatic relations with Mexico which ended in war. 
When Butler appears for the first time upon the stage of diplomacy, he 
had recently been in Texas and professed to be familiar with the pro- 
posed river boundaries. Sent to Mexico as bearer of despatches to Poinsett, 
he went overland, again through Texas, and secretly. . . . From 1829 
to 1836, during practically all of Jackson's term, Anthony Butler repre- 
sented, or rather misrepresented, the United States in Mexico." Reeves, 
Diplomacy iindcr Tyler and Polk, 68. 

"Butler to Van Buren, Jan. 10, 1830. and enclosure, H. Ew. Docs., 2oc., 
2s., No. 351, p. 310. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 259 

ment and people of the United States for Mexican territory they 
unfortimately were able to cite the numerous articles which had 
been appearing in the administration newspapers in the United 
States dwelling on the value of Texas, and the desirability of its 
acquisition.^^ 

Finally the administration at Washington came to the conclu- 
sion that it was unwise, for the time being at least, to endeavor 
to make the purchase; and Van Buren wrote Butler April 1, 1830: 

The unsettled state of affairs in Mexico, and the excitement grow- 
ing out of it, to which reference has already been several times 
niade in the course of this communication, have induced an appre- 
hension on the part of the President that the present is not an 
auspicious moment for the successful opening of the negotiations 
which form the object of the instructions from this department of 
the 25th August, 1829. To watch the state of the public mind, 
the opinions of the principal members of the government, and 
hear what is said on all sides, is all that is, for the present, 
expected from your agency in the matter. In doing this the great- 
est caution and circumspection is enjoined upon you; and the 
exercise of the most guarded discretion will be necessary on your 
part not to commit yourself or your government upon any point 
connected with the subject. You will, also, in informing this 
department of the result of your observations and reflections, adopt 
every measure which prudence will suggest to insure the safety of 
your communications. If, however, an opportunity should present 
itself to carry into effect the wishes of your government, in this 
respect, you will not fail to embrace it upon the principles and 
according to the instructions already given to yoii.*^^ 

As stated in the opening lines it is the purpose of this article 
to trace the relations between Mexico and the United States 
respecting Texas and the boundary only through the year 1829. 
The instruction of April 1 of the following year is introduced to 
show that the Jackson administration virtually withdrew the offer 
of the preceding August. In the hands of most diplomatic agents 
this instruction, taken together with the state of public opinion in 
Mexico, would have ended completely all effort to obtain the ces- 
sion of Texas. But it was not so with Butler. He interpreted 
the last sentence quoted as leaving the matter entirely to his dis- 
cretion. On receiving the letter he replied : 

»^See McMaster, U. 8., V, 543-547. 

9^Va.n Buren to Butler, April 1, 1830, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 2s., No. 351, 
p. 62. 



260 The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 

I am glaci that you adopt the opinion that the present time is 
inauspicious for the commencement of the negotiation for Texas, 
and have placed under ray discretion the period and the manner 
of opening that subject. That discretion shall be exercised with 
all proper caution, and my Judgment taxed to the extent of its 
powers for securing success.®^ 

During the six years of his residence he never abandoned the 
project, showing in his correspondence with the officials of the 
government in Washington an unblushing readiness to resort to 
Ijribery and trickery when he found that legitimate diplomatic 
effort would not accomplish his purpose.®^ To show the ultimate 
failure of all negotiations respecting the boundary up to this date, 
the subsequent fate of the treaty of limits pending at this time 
sliould be briefly traced. It will be recalled that it was concluded 
January 12, 1828, and that owing to delay on the part of Mexico 
the exchange of ratifications was not effected within the stipulated 
time limit of four months. On April 5, 1831, an additional 
article was concluded renewing the treaty and extending the time 
for exchanging the ratifications one year from that date.^** On 
April 5. 1832, the last day allowed, the ratifications were ex- 
changed. This time the Mexican government acted nearly three 
months before the expiration of the time; but the United Stater- 
delayed until the last day, the Mexican representative having de- 
clared two days earlier that his government had instructed him 
not to exchange the ratifications of the commercial treaty unless 
those of the treaty of limits could be exchanged at the same time, 
and the United States Senate having advised and consented to its 
ratification on the day preceding the exchange.^*"' The one year 
provided in article three within which commissioners should meet 
to begin marking the line expired without Mexico's acting, though 
the United States had been prompt enough this time,^'^^ and on 
April 3, 1835, a second additional article was agreed to, whic'.i 

"Butler to Van Buren, May 21, 18.30, lUd., 326. 

•"See Barker, "Jackson and the Tex. Rev.," A. H. R., XII, 791-797. 

*°U. S., Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, I, 1084. 

'""Ibid.j and Montoya to Livingston, March 26, 1832, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., 
Is., No. 42, p. 51; Same to same, March 31, 1832, Ibid., 53; Same to 
same, April 3, 1832, Ibid., 57. 

""Castillo to McLane, Dec. 2, 1833, H. Ex. Docs., 25c., Is., No. 42, p. 60; 
Same to same, Ibid., 02; McLane to Butler, Jan. 13, 1834, Ibid., 16. But- 
ler to Lombardo, Dec. 21, 1834, Ibid., 38. 



Texas and the Boundary Issue, 1822-1829 261 

provided that the commissioners should be appointed within one 
year from the exchange of the ratifications of this second addi- 
tional article. But the ratifications of this article were not ex- 
changed till April 20, 1836,"- when Texas had wrested her inde- 
pendence from Mexico by force of arms. The commissioners never 
met. 

With the attempts of the Mexican government in September, 
1829, and April, 1830, to stop immigration into Texas from the 
United States the relations between Texas and Mexico and the 
relations between Mexico and the United States respecting Texas 
enter a new phase. This has been and is being treated sufficiently 
fully by students of the Texas Eevolution, the Texas national 
period, and the annexation of Texas to the United States. 

"^Mexico, Trat. y Conv., I, 180. 



«S,y °'' CONGRESS 




015 832 307 2 ^ 

1 



